Are these cables in the safe zones?

[stillp]

I think the proposal is from someone thinking along the lines you've expressed earlier - i.e., that people should not assume that regions outside the 'safe zones' do not contain cables. The intent is therefore to limit the extent of areas that can be considered as 'safe zones'. The UK requirement is different in that it addresses the electrician, and where he is 'permitted' to install cables.

 

[EFLImpudence]

...and, as usual, a poor name was chosen - "safe zone" in no way describes it.

Surely just "cable zone" would have covered it.

 

[stillp]

Yes, there's nothing safe about the safe zones.

 

[JohnW2]

I think the proposal is from someone thinking along the lines you've expressed earlier - i.e., that people should not assume that regions outside the 'safe zones' do not contain cables. The intent is therefore to limit the extent of areas that can be considered as 'safe zones'.

As you say, outside of 'safe zones' is not, and should not be considered to be, necessarily free from concealed cables.

However, it is at least the case that inside of 'safe zones' one has to assume that cables may well be present, so that greater caution is required (if one has a drill, screw or nail in one's hand). I would have thought that this would be an argument for extending, not reducing, 'safe zones'!

However, one problem is that the UK regulations require onerous cable selection/installation if the cable is not within the specified 'safe zones'. If, per what you say, the extent of 'safe zones' were reduced, but with those other requirements still in place, that would have a major impact on cable installation.

Although I know (per you recent post) that you appear to have an interest in further reducing risks that are already incredibly small (and although there have been one or two high-profile cases), do you actually believe that penetration of buried cables results in 'significant' harm?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

do you actually believe that penetration of buried cables results in 'significant' harm?

There are numerous reports that penetration of cables has resulted in electric shock. There is a likelihood that harm will result from such shocks, so where it is reasonably practicable to reduce that risk, we should do so.
Also remember that the Object of BS7671 is to ensure "safety and proper functioning of the installation, so it is quite reasonable for it to include requirements that do not enhance safety.

 

[davelx]

There are numerous reports that penetration of cables has resulted in electric shock. There is a likelihood that harm will result from such shocks, so where it is reasonably practicable to reduce that risk, we should do so.
Also remember that the Object of BS7671 is to ensure "safety and proper functioning of the installation, so it is quite reasonable for it to include requirements that do not enhance safety.

If this were to mean that all switch drops would have to be in conduit, I would suggest that it is NOT reasonably practicable!

 

[JohnW2]

If this were to mean that all switch drops would have to be in conduit, I would suggest that it is NOT reasonably practicable!

Indeed - and, as I pointed out earlier, it would be much wider than just switch drops, but also drops (or 'rises' from below floor) to sockets, FCUs, wall lights, fans etc. etc. In fact, as I think I said before, looking around my house there are actually very few buried cable runs which are straight horizontal/vertical runs between two visible accessories.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

If this were to mean that all switch drops would have to be in conduit, I would suggest that it is NOT reasonably practicable!

Yes, in (most) domestic situations that would clearly be disproportionate.